TOP judges are being asked to decide whether relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages claims against the Government.

TOP judges are being asked to decide whether relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages claims against the Government.

Three Court of Appeal Judges have begun analysing compensation issues at a hearing in London – including the case of a 21-year-old Tamworth soldier who was killed seven years ago.

Phillip Hewett, a private in the 1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment, died in July 2005 in a roadside bomb attack on a patrol of three armoured Snatch Land Rovers in the Al Amarah region.

His mother, Susan Smith, has joined a number of families of fallen soldiers who are backing fresh legal action, which lawyers say could also affect potential claims by injured servicemen and women.

In June 2011, a High Court judge said relatives could pursue claims on negligence grounds, but families were blocked from seeking compensation under human rights legislation.

Lawyers representing relatives and the MoD have lodged appeals against those decisions.

Relatives argued that the MoD failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives.

But the MoD said decisions about battlefield equipment were for “politicians and military commanders”.

Robert Weir QC, for some relatives, told the appeal court: “The state is under a positive obligation to take all reasonable measures to protect the lives of its soldiers.

“In the context of activities that form part of soldiers’ ordinary duties, albeit that these may involve dangerous activities, that positive obligation requires the state to adopt and implement regulations and systems to mitigate the relevant risk to life, including adequate equipment and training.”

He said part of the argument in the hearing, which is expected to last three days, was about the MoD’s decision to use Snatch Land Rovers.

“In this case the (MoD) took a decision not to provide medium armoured vehicles in Iraq but instead to deploy soldiers using Snatch Land Rovers,” added Mr Weir.

“It did this in circumstances where it was aware of the inadequacy of those vehicles and the increased risk to life that they involved.”